Limited player maps

[e_i_pi]

No - these 2 don't conflict - you are misinferring Oaktown's post...

What he means is :-
If you have a map that allows 8 players - then it should cater for all types of play available... i.e. Quads, Trips, Dubs, Assassin, Termy, Standard, 7,6,5,4,3,2 players.
If you have a map that has 4 players - then it should cater for all types available... i.e. Dubs, Assassin, Termy, Standard, 4,3,2 players...

You can't have a map that could have (say) 6 players - but should only be played with all 6 players... because playing with less makes it too unbalanced.

C.

I would think that the best way around this would be to allow only 6-player games on maps designed specifically for 6 players, though this is something for contemplation in future.

I believe that blanket banning certain aspects of map design would be a method of hamstringing the potential of the site. In saying that, I'm not trying to start a blue or anything. I just think that there is a lot of potential in the game, given the rules, the community, and the gameplay. Allowing maps such as the pentagram game reggie suggested may be opening a can of worms, but who knows, they could be tasty worms if fried in just the right way. Maybe with bananas or something

I certainly won't be disheartened from continuing with my 1v1 map, but I understand it does have to be something special, as I'll be pushing sh*t uphill (to use an Australian term ). Nobody wants "just another map", they want something new and unique, which I am aiming to provide, and I'd say lack doesn't want a swathe of new map types where only a bare handful of them can hold their own.

I'm actually quite suprised how much discussion has come about from my OP, and it's heartening to see so many experienced foundry folk take part. Good work guys

[oaktown]

I'm bumping this thread because I think it is a conversation that needs to be had.

I made a stupid post right before I got on a plane two weeks ago about how we need to be aware of the quality of our maps, and that it is becoming too easy for some map makers to 'phone it in' so to speak and just produce knock-offs of what we've already made... if a formula works, stick to it. Well, I'd like to withdraw that entire rant, and instead say this:

We, as a Foundry, should consider making maps that step a bit outside of what we've been making. Let's start making maps that are best played - or that can ONLY be played - with two or three players. A lot of CC users play exclusively 2 player games - let's make them some damn maps.

As far as I know we've ever out-right banned 2-player maps, though we certainly haven't encouraged it. The quote (by me) from the how to make a map page is probably as close as we have officially come...

The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).

My intention in writing that was to steer mapmakers away from making maps that would only work with specific game settings, because you as a mapmaker can't control what type of game a user is going to start. For instance, an 8-territory map might be just fine for a two player game, but some jerk is going to start up a ton of 8-player assassin games on your map and use it for newb farming. Likewise, we have a couple of maps in play right now that are fantastic when played under fog, but are almost pointless without fog. By creating a map that is only really feasible to play with specific settings, you run the risk of creating a joke.

However, you CAN create an eight territory map on which an eight-player game can't be started, simply by making six (or five, or four) of those territories neutrals. Starting number of players is the one game setting you can control for via some creative coding, so I say do it. Hell, we already have a maps that can't be played by more than six players, and Fuedal is one of the more popular maps on the site.

So let's make some two players maps. In fact, I may try to start up a two-player project myself.

[e_i_pi]

So let's make some two players maps. In fact, I may try to start up a two-player project myself.

That sounds like the go ahead to me. Currently I'm working on Central America, Antarctica is all but finished graphically, Westeros has just started, but I'm tearing through it. I expect all those to be finished within 6 weeks. Next project - Operation Halberd

[lgoasklucyl]

Just a quick point that hasn't really been made yet- the site could benefit tremendously with two player limited maps. Especially considering the Resolution to rid ourselves of farming- creating a map designed for this type of play would be a huge advantage to anyone joining it 1v1. Maps like City Mogul have turned into 1v1 farm-fests for certain players who are simply faster than another player. Having a map MADE for this gameplay (unlike Mogul) would really help to lessen this problem.

Obviously it won't rid us of players specializing and taking advantage of said maps/settings, but I feel it would help. I personally don't play 1v1 anymore really based on the amount of luck required. Joining a map MADE for this style that wouldn't be based on luck would be great incentive to get back in the 1v1 game again.

[oaktown]

[quote="lgoasklucyl"]Especially considering the Resolution to rid ourselves of farming- creating a map designed for this type of play would be a huge advantage to anyone joining it 1v1... Having a map MADE for this gameplay (unlike Mogul) would really help to lessen this problem.[quote]
Agreed... as you went on to say it wouldn't eliminate farming - I don't think anything we do every will - but at least it offers users a decent 1v1 option.

So... for those of you who play 1v1 games, what would make a good twp player map? How big? What kind of bonuses?